>be a journalist
>actually be there right in Germany and witness Hitler's rule first-hand
>write what is regarded as the best book on Nazi Germany ever written
>historians get so buttblasted about this that they refuse to recognize your book as a history book just because you don't have the academic credentials
So, do you regard this as a history book or not?
Sometimes, /lit/ has this weird persecution delusion in regards to academia, so many posts on "academics hate this book!111!!! but it's so good!!!1!!1!" without any sources for either position.
What is up with that?
(Examples: This thread, that overlong thread on Guns, Germs and Steel)
>be actual historian
>anonymous troll on Taiwanese cartoon board speaks of what he does not know
A history book written by someone who was there is better regarded as reportage. If the author lacks a suitable distance from his subject their objectivity should be called into question. The lack of distance usually means they don't have access to opposing views so they will unmeaningly give a one sided depiction of history. No matter what the book's value as history it really can't be regarded as the best book on that period because of the inherent biases.
>A history book written by someone who was there is better regarded as reportage.
All history is reportage m8.
If historians don't consider this journalist as a legit source, why do they consider anecdotal evidence by Jewish survivors of the Holocaust as authoritative?
Seems weird then.
>If historians don't consider this journalist as a legit source
They never said it wasn't a legit "source", just not good as a history book. The main criticism leveled against it were a crude understanding of German history, a lack of balance, leaving important gaps, no understanding of a modern totalitarian regime, and ignorance of current scholarship of the Nazi period.
Hitler sucked dick he ruined everything and then he blew his brains out. Some people liked it, because they benefited from it, whilst a great many others did not. Hitler was a dumb bastard and he got his nation in a war when he was supposedly trying to help them economically. He could have stopped early, but he decided it was a good idea to keep pushing forward with expansion and in the end that cost him his ass.
There's really nothing much to Hitler, there is more to study with Facism and National Socialism and how shit they are.
has anyone seen this? adolf hitler's wicked mind.
apparently adolf was an edgelord who liked to get pissed on.
i guess it depends on your view of freudian psychoanalysis.
>They never said it wasn't a legit "source", just not good as a history book. The main criticism leveled against it were a crude understanding of German history, a lack of balance, leaving important gaps, no understanding of a modern totalitarian regime, and ignorance of current scholarship of the Nazi period.
>just not good as a history book
All these criticisms seems to imply that they don't even think it's a good book at all.
Shirer under emphasized the Jewish communists trying to take over Germany and completely excluded evidence that the Jews murdered Hitler at the end of the war. So it's really poor history and nothing more than propaganda for the Jewish cabal.
"... this was quite shattering for him, because don't forget this messianic self-concept was the compensatory overlay for the profound void within."
why does this remind me of how the jewish orthodoxy rejected the chist-nature of jesus?
Journalism and history are different disciplines. You can read TRAFOTTR and appreciate his research and personal experience but you should probably take some of his sweeping conclusions about German culture and why homosexuals made such sadistic evil nazis who smelled bad.
History book or a journalist's observations, doubtless people refer to this as authoritative source.
So who the fuck cares?
"Good essay there, Jimmy, but I see you cited Shirer, and he's not really a historian, you know. Last semester you cited Reed on the Bolsheviks! What's wrong with you, Jimmy? Wanna get flunked?"
Every 'popular' and 'credible' books that are acclaimed by academia on the Third Reich, is Jewish propaganda, I don't know how you don't realize this. It's part of a Jewish plot to subvert Western civilization.
Hitler literally did nothing wrong.
>book has a part in it where a top nazi official calls hitler out for doing the exact same things he's accusing jews of doing
>book gets criticized by academics for having a journalistic tone rather than academic, which I agree is bullshit
>/pol/smokers use this criticism of a book they never read as proof of a widespread jewish conspiracy in academia
Whether or not there is is beside the point. /pol/dancers cannot claim moral superiority over such a supposed conspiracy if the only problem they'd have with it is that they're not the ones doing the subversion and enslavement.
>using "liberal" to describe members of the left
You can't just redefine words on a whim to better suit your precious feelings. Go back to tumblr.
I wish people wouldn't ask this fucking question. Why the hell would there be a best book on anything, or a definitive book to read for fuck sake. Especially on a subject that has been written about so fucking much.
I've never seen a /pol/fag talk about a book they've read, not even one that would confirm their worldview. That's how illiterate they are.
Please explain why in more detail.
>ideal exacerbater of emotions
Firstly, exacerbater isn't a word. Secondly, the nuclear family exacerbates emotions because humans have evolved to feel emotional bonds between parents and child. Thirdly, nothing you've said actually explains why the nuclear family is worse than any other societal structure of rearing.
in his defense he makes no mention of the holocaust in it...
nazis were absolute monsters during ww2, the more i read the less doubt i have...
whether the figure was 6 million is a matter of debate but not all jews are jewy
Capitalism affects the power of emotional groupings such as the family, which in turn help consolidate the capitalist system. It could be argued that the Nuclear Family grew parallel with the rise of private property, restricting emotion to aspects of the financial.
All social relations are produced by power, with groups or classes in power creating themselves by constituting other groups as Other. Sexuality is a primary technology of power. Sex plays the role for the bourgeoisie that blood played for the aristocracy; that is, as a means of defining the body. The bourgeoisie define the body as an object to be known, controlled, and in general made use of in order to maximise life. The family, serves to locate sexuality and to confine it and to intensify it.
so what u want lil nigga? sum brave new world type shit everyone just use each other as instruments to their own immediate sexual self-gratification, cuck? No love, jsut masturbation with various partners with whom nothing is shared except the mechanical act of 'satisfying' your libidinal drive with various indifferent masturbatory props?
ABSOLUTE FUCKING CUCK
Nuclear family is literally perfect. Extended families are good too, but they don't fit too well in bourgeois civilization (best civilization, cry moar french faggots).
Everything else is degeneracy that talks about "freedom" but quickly degenerates into harems. It's like you don't even know left-libertarian student unions.
No, the nuclear family did not grow parallel to the rise of private property. Are you serious? Have you read anything on this subject?
The second part you appear to parrot words or learned phrases without considering their meaning. For example "all social relations are produced by power." Is this really the case? Is friendship, for example, "produced by power?" Think about it. Are you impelled to befriend people based on power, or based on having a good time with them?
"Sexuality is a primary technology of power." This unfortunately is related to sex rather than the nuclear family, as is the rest of the paragraph. I'm not asking about sex, the body, the other, or anything else. I'm asking very plainly if you can suggest why the nuclear family is bad, and if there is another system that would be better than it.
If you could reply in your own words, and not in learned phrases, you may make a better case.
I used to, actually, but got disgusted and quit after I saw the leaders and professors creating harems out of the girls I liked.
>know others that don't
My point is that people like you want to transform the entire world in a left-libertarian student union.
>Is this really the case?
>Is friendship, for example, "produced by power?
>. Are you impelled to befriend people based on power, or based on having a good time with them?
>This unfortunately is related to sex rather than the nuclear family
Sex is related to the nuclear family.
>I'm asking very plainly if you can suggest why the nuclear family is bad
The nuclear family is presented as the superior family structure for the rearing of children, and the single-mother family becomes the focus of the social work gaze through which specific types of social work "intervention" and "assessment" come to be prescribed and justified, through confession or otherwise.
The nuclear family is involved in sex through subtext. Sex is a broader set of results from sex as we relate to it. Sexuality for him must be considered in terms of concepts of knowledge and power
There's other forms of family that exist without being "open". But they do involve the accumulation of social capital. For example, you are all but ignoring Single Fathers and Single Mothers.
>Sentence doesn't make grammatical sense
>even if it did it would still be nonsense
>regurgitates this stuff in every single thread ever made
Truly, it must be awful to be you. I'm actually sorry for you.
You're totally not not right, i.e. Wrong.
Truth is intrinsically used in the service of capitalism, says Bataille; however, according to Hamburger, it is not so much truth that is intrinsically used in the service of capitalism, but rather the collapse, and subsequent stasis, of truth. It could be said that Foucault promotes the use of pretextual theory to deconstruct sexism. The subject is contextualised into a textual theory that includes reality as a whole.
Society is part of the rubicon of truth, says Sartre, however, according to Parry, it is not so much society that is part of the rubicon of truth, but rather the fatal flaw of society. It could be said that substructuralist dematerialism states that consciousness, somewhat paradoxically, has objective value, given that Marx’s model of capitalist discourse is valid. The subject is contextualised into a textual theory that includes culture as a paradox.
At what point can you stop trying to find meaning from the links between the concepts themselves and not the material conditions that present themselves, the actually relevant conditions of life in the present under Capitalism, and the possibilities of further hazard within the future.
>The West is a geographical place and therefore should be capitalised.
I capitalized Idealized West because it's everyone's love to idealize the west, and not critique it.
>starting a sentence with and
lol, considering the nazis killed millions of polish, russian and other types of civilians during the war, and considering that anti-semitism was at the core of its ideology, how could you say that only 2500 jews died under nazi rule ayyy lmao
People, especially americans have a hard time swallowing this like the butthurt newfag from cuck /po/ 2.0. here >>6393985 , but this essentially true, without private property and the division of labour the family would have never existed. Even the modern nuclear form of the family today evolved out of very speciffic forms of capitalist growth. In the past the clan or the tribe was more important.
There is nothing that points to the effectiveness of the family system apart from training and educating you to function within the Capitalist framework of caste like worker management, other than that it's all muh feels.
Hitler's tabletalk was completely made up by that guy and has no historical basis or gravity.
Mein Kampf was ghost written by Rudolf Hess
and the second book is a continuation of his mad power fantasies from Mein Kampf
>there are retards who actually choose to read Rise and Fall of the Third Reich over Albert Speer's Inside the Third Reich
Rise and Fall of the Third Reich is pleb tier schlock written by a muck raker.
I've never heard historians complain about this book. What are the major reasons for their skepticism towards Rise and Fall?
>write what is regarded as the best book on Nazi Germany ever written
Typically I don't trust the masses to say whether or not something is historically accurate. Bill O'Reily continues to write best sellers and half the country probably believes that his books are historically perfect and honest. However any trained historian could point out how shitty his books really are, but they are popular nonetheless.
Rise and Fall has been on my history list for awhile now, I might pick it up just to see what all the fuss is about.
Here is what historian, Evans, had to say about it
>Shirer’s book has probably sold millions of copies in the four decades or more since its appearance. It has never gone out of print and remains the first port of call for many people who want a readable general history of Nazi Germany. There are good reasons for the book’s success. Shirer was an American journalist who reported from Nazi Germany until the United States entered the war in December, 1941, and he had a journalist’s eye for the telling detail and the illuminating incident. His book is full of human interest, with many arresting quotations from the actors in the drama, and it is written with all the flair and style of a seasoned reporter’s despatches from the front. Yet it was universally panned by professional historians. The emigré German scholar Klaus Epstein spoke for many when he pointed out that Shirer’s book presented an ‘unbelievably crude’ account of German history, making it all seem to lead up inevitably to the Nazi seizure of power. It had ’glaring gaps’ in its coverage. It concentrated far too much on high politics, foreign policy and military events, and even in 1960 it was ‘in no way abreast of current scholarship dealing with the Nazi period’. Getting on for half a century later, this comment is even more justified than it was in Epstein’s day. For all its virtues, therefore, Shirer’s book cannot really deliver a history of Nazi Germany that meets the demands of the early twenty-first-century reader
Interesting. It's probably still important to read in terms of viewing the period from a journalists point of view. However there are probably much better books on why Nazi Germany actually happened. Still think I'll give this a read, just finished a Concise History of Germany so this is will probably compliment it.
Thanks for the info anon
Well yes, i mean by now the book is quite dated, and serves better as a source material. It is still a useful source of information, Evan's does use him in his own work, but it's not something you read to give you a definitive knowledge of Nazi Germany.
Here's an interesting article from 1946, when nobody on /lit/ could give me an answer as to the legality of the Nuremberg proceedings.
tl;dr Executive power dressed as judicial
>people find this period of history interesting
Third Reich is top pleb history.
In my entire life, I have almost never heard the nazi area brought up not to be bait/strawman. This period is plagued by non criticized judgments of value.
Example : you are for eugenism, literal Hitler, when eugenism has always been a flop in Germany, the nazis almost immediately dropped it, and England was the eugenism center of the world.
There is a reason why the Godwin point became a thing. Discussion involving nazis are almost immediately intothetrash.jpg
If anything I'd consider the Weimar Republic more interesting.
Hitler's Table Talk was not made up. There was a "sequel" of sorts that purported to be Hitler conversations from 1945 and that is made up. "Hitler Speaks" also known as "The Voice of Destruction" is another fabrication (actually war-time propaganda). But Hitler's Table Talks is not made up.
>when eugenism has always been a flop in Germany, the nazis almost immediately dropped it
sooooo outlawed interracial marriages, forced sterilization and murder of disabled, and the holocaust, that wasn't eugenics? what then?